JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith treating his suspension period as service without any break and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to conduct a full-fledged enquiry in respect of the allegations raised. 2. The petitioner joined service under the Zamorin Central Devaswom in 1990. He was appointed as Administrative Officer of Zamorin Central Devaswom in 2007. While working so, on 26.12.2017, the Bandarams of Alathiyur Perumthrikkovil, Tirur Taluk were opened and counted under the supervision of the 4th respondent-Devaswom Inspector. The Central Devaswom Office soon thereafter received a complaint alleging misappropriation of the currency subjected to counting. The complaints were received along with two CDs through post. The petitioner being Administrative Officer, perused the complaint. Taking into account the gravity of the allegations involved, the petitioner forwarded the complaint to the 1st respondent-Trustee of the Devaswom along with a note. 3. The petitioner states that he has done so bona fide for facilitating the Trustee to take appropriate decision in the matter. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, he was issued with Ext.P1 show-cause notice dated 28.03.2018 from the 1st respondent alleging that by forwarding the complaint along with a note, the petitioner acted with prejudice and haste. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation dated 02.04.2018. By Ext.P3 letter dated 03.04.2018, the petitioner was informed that his explanation is not satisfactory. Ext.P3 required the petitioner to appear before a Committee. The petitioner appeared before the Committee. Subsequently, Ext.P4 show-cause notice dated 17.09.2018 was served on the petitioner stating that the Committee has found that the petitioner is guilty of concocting false allegation and complaint against the 4th respondent. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted Ext.P5 explanation dated 22.09.2018. However, as per Ext.P6 order dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner was suspended pending domestic enquiry. An Advocate was appointed as enquiry officer on 10.10.2018. Ext.P9 charge memo dated 07.01.2019 was served on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contended that the entire proceedings narrated above have been initiated by the 1st respondent-Trustee to protect the 4th respondent and it is not in the best of interest of the Devaswom. Ext.P9 charge memo is not in specific terms. The allegations of misconduct lack clarity. No statement of allegations are enclosed with the charge memo. 4. The petitioner contended that the entire proceedings narrated above have been initiated by the 1st respondent-Trustee to protect the 4th respondent and it is not in the best of interest of the Devaswom. Ext.P9 charge memo is not in specific terms. The allegations of misconduct lack clarity. No statement of allegations are enclosed with the charge memo. As the enquiry was not being proceeded with, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 14.01.2019 before the 3rd respondent - Commissioner requesting to cancel the charge memo and reinstate him in service. Ext.P10 did not yield any result. 5. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the Malabar Devaswom Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal administration of the temple. Power to appoint employees and initiate disciplinary proceedings, is vested with the Trustee. A complaint addressed to the 1st respondent was received by the petitioner. In the complaint, it was stated that while Bandarams were opened and counted on 26.12.2017, the 4th respondent committed theft. It was also stated that in spite of knowledge, the Executive Officer of the temple did not promptly act. When the 1st respondent received the complaint, he called for a report from the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer and 25 employees gave a statement in writing revealing that they have not preferred any such complaint and that the contents of the complaint are false. 6. Still, an explanation was called for from the 4th respondent and the Executive Officer of the temple. The 4th respondent was removed from duty of counting of Bandarams. The counting was done by temple employees under strict supervision of an Inspector appointed by the Malabar Devaswom Board. Three officers deputed by SBI, Tirur Branch, office bearers of Kshetra Samithi, Melsanthi of the temple and devotees will be present during counting. There were about 35 persons witnessing counting. Commission of theft under such circumstances is inherently improbable. 7. However, the 1st respondent sent the CD containing CC TV footage to an IT expert. The expert reported that the CC TV footage does not disclose any theft. Therefore, the 1st respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner and other relevant factors were examined by the Committee. 7. However, the 1st respondent sent the CD containing CC TV footage to an IT expert. The expert reported that the CC TV footage does not disclose any theft. Therefore, the 1st respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner and other relevant factors were examined by the Committee. The Committee, as per Ext.R1(l) dated 27.04.2018, reported that the petitioner was instrumental in creating the complaint deliberately with a sustained intention to destroy the credibility and reputation of the 4th respondent. As Ext.R1(l) and Ext.R1(n) reports of the Committee would prima facie show that the petitioner has committed breach of trust and was instrumental in fabricating complaints, a disciplinary proceeding is warranted against the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order of suspension was served on the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance in respect of the findings in the enquiry, he has a remedy by way of appeal under Section 49(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. A further appeal is also provided under Section 49(3) of the Act. The writ petition therefore lacks bona fides and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner filed reply affidavit and the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit to the reply affidavit, reiterating their contentions. The petitioner filed a further additional affidavit. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged various grounds for interfering with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It was pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings is nothing but victimisation for bringing out the irregularities being perpetrated in the temple. The disciplinary authority acted mala fide. The entire enquiry from its very inception is vitiated by procedural irregularities. Unfairness on the part of disciplinary authority has also been alleged. The issuance of a vague charge sheet by itself is unfair, it was contended. 10. We do not propose to adjudicate on all such allegations since the sole issue of vagueness of charges, is sufficient to decide the legality of the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Ext.P9 memo of charges issued to the petitioner reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx A reading of the charges would show that, in respect of the alleged misconducts, even elementary details are not provided. Charge No. 1 states that certain officers have given statement before preliminary enquiry committee that the petitioner has taken action which would adversely affect the Devaswom staff. Charge No. 1 states that certain officers have given statement before preliminary enquiry committee that the petitioner has taken action which would adversely affect the Devaswom staff. What are such actions and when such deeds were committed, are absent in the charge sheet. In the second charge, it has been alleged that certain Devaswom officers and staff have deposed that the petitioner has acted in a manner to bring about mistrust among the trustees and employees. Here again, any particulars of the alleged misdeeds is absent. The date and time of commission of such acts are also absent. Charge Nos. 3 to 5 also similarly lack material particulars. In short, by Ext.P9 charge memo, the petitioner has been left to guess the charge against him from the statements/depositions given by others. Copies of such statements/depositions have not accompanied Ext.P9 charge memo. Nor does the charge memo is supported by any statement in support of the allegations. 12. The Apex Court has considered the legality of issuing such charge sheets in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty vs. State of West Bengal, (1970) 3 SCC 548 . The Apex Court held that if a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. In Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995 , the Apex Court held that the deficiencies which vitiate a vague charge sheet cannot be allowed to be supplemented by recourse to evidence at a later stage. In a judgment of the Bombay High Court, Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna (as he then was) in Miraj Taluka Girni Kamgar Sangh vs. The Manager, Shree Gajanan Weaving Mills, Sangh and Others, 1991 (2) CLR 714 held as follows:- “An employee faced with a vague charge that he is guilty of a described type of misconduct, would be extremely hard put to defend himself against the charge unless he is informed such particulars as would enable him to given an effective reply thereto and demonstrate that the charges are false or, otherwise not acceptable. Scanning the chargesheet given to the petitioner in the present case, I am of the view that it can be used as a model for what a chargesheet ought not to be. In my Judgment, therefore, the chargesheet itself ought to have been quashed and struck down by the two Courts below on this very count.” In the said judgment, it was held that allegations with sufficient precision and particulars so as to enable the employee to defend himself, is the barest requirement of a charge sheet consistent with principles of natural justice. 13. The object of requiring the employer to present a chargesheet with a degree of precision, containing a disclosure of the circumstances of the case which are alleged to constitute misconduct, is to enable the chargesheeted employee to have a real opportunity of defending himself. To ask the employee to defend himself against a general allegation of misconduct without specification of particulars denies to him an effective right of defending himself. An employee who is called upon to defend himself must know what he has to defend himself against. What the employee is to defend himself against has to be discernible from the chargesheet which is issued to him. Chargesheets of the kind involved in the present case are replete with a great potential of mischief because if such chargesheets were allowed to stand, it would be open to the employer to lead any and every kind of evidence during the course of the departmental enquiry on the basis of vague and undefined allegations of misconduct. This would be a travesty of fairness and reasonableness and would lead to a grave miscarriage of justice. The requirement that the chargesheet must be precise and must contain a statement of imputations constituting the foundation of misconduct is a basic principle of natural justice. Natural justice in a disciplinary enquiry must mean that the employee must have notice of the charges, first and foremost. This is a fundamental stipulation the noncompliance of which would vitiate the enquiry. 14. Ext.P9 charge memo lacks material particulars, rendering itself vague. By Ext.P9, the petitioner has been left to guess and assume from statements not supplied to him, the facts constituting his alleged misconducts. Ext.P9 as a charge memo, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. This is a fundamental stipulation the noncompliance of which would vitiate the enquiry. 14. Ext.P9 charge memo lacks material particulars, rendering itself vague. By Ext.P9, the petitioner has been left to guess and assume from statements not supplied to him, the facts constituting his alleged misconducts. Ext.P9 as a charge memo, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Though the 1st respondent has sought to permit him to issue supplementary imputation of charges, we are not inclined to grant such permission at this stage of the writ proceedings. 15. In view of the above, we are of the definite opinion that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P9 charge memo would definitely violate the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 charge memo and consequential proceedings are set aside. 16. Writ petition is disposed of as above.